From: Jessica Rosner [SMTP:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:18 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: VERY interesting copyright article
The very definition of copyright is ownership and you can't alter
without permission. If this were being done strictly for home use
no one would notice but the store is doing them for public rental.
this were legal I could just buy a bunch of legal copies of Disney
insert whatever I wanted so long as I had purchased them and then I
rent them out ?. Sorry but I don't have any sympathy for the guy and
once I would cheer the MPPA. It goes to the heart of both copyright
artists rights that you can't alter without permission.
> From: Darryl Wiggers <Darryl.Wiggers@AllianceAtlantis.com>
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:51:07 -0800 (PST)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
> Subject: RE: VERY interesting copyright article
> Where is it written that one can't alter a legally purchased copy?
> warning on all my videos only talks about public screenings and
> That's it. Besides, it's not as if he disguising what he's doing.
No one who
> is interested in purchasing an unedited version would be fooled
> with this guy...
> According to the Copyright Infringement Act of 1976 "Any person
> fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright
appearing on a
> copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500."
> Only the warning can't be "removed" or "altered." And you can't
> fraud with Mr. CleanVideo. He spells out what is omitted... I
> anything else in the Copyright Infringement Act that suggests that
> CleanVideo claims he's doing can't be done. Can anyone?
> And let's suppose he is nailed. How is his crime different from a
> store that sells me a "used" mangled, chewed-up video that's
blurry and full
> of picture drop-outs. That video has been altered too from its
> condition. Maybe I can get the MPAA on my local store's case...
> Personally I would never do business with Mr. CleanVideo because I
> see my movies unedited. But I'm not convinced that what he's doing
> illegal, and cannot share in the drooling enthusiasm to have him
> quartered. I especially don't understand why people seem less
> corporations who lie, deceive, cheat, overcharge and steal from
> consumers than a guy who is openly providing a seemingly legal
> his community clearly wants.